Predictably, in the wake of a Muslim Bonnie and Clyde's jihad murder of the husband's kindly co-workers who had recently thrown them a baby shower, our chattering classes are getting grim-jawed in their determination to take guns away from the law-abiding. Enough is enough indeed. But the idea that "enough is enough" means "ban more guns" is as ludicrous as the idea that it means "ban more pipes." After all, the couple was also building pipe bombs in their home.
No, "enough is enough" should be, but won't be, an expression of enlightenment: It's the ideology, stupid.
One of the most disturbing points in this jihadist murder spree is that there may well have been no warning sign except Islam itself that Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook posed any threat. True, Tashfeen began making more "radical" posts to her Facebook page, but only after she had already received the necessary background clearance to get a "fiancee visa" and a conditional green card. Why should any law enforcement agency have been trying to look at her Facebook page after that any more than that of any other recent Muslim immigrant to the United States?
It is impossible for leftists at this point to lose face by admitting that Islam is a poisonous ideology and that the latent danger of "self-radicalization" is always there in Muslim immigrants and even second-generation children of Muslim immigrants (like Syed Farook), that this springs from the teaching of jihad itself within Islam, and that this should influence our policies.
But there may still be self-styled conservatives who are not beyond realizing this or beyond connecting the dots. The connection to increased Muslim immigration, such as the Syrian immigration President Obama is insisting upon, should be evident. More rigorous "vetting" processes are going to be impossible anyway in a crisis situation, when, "They're gonna die if you don't hurry up and get them over here!" is the cry. But even if we had more time, as we did in the case of Tashfeen Malik, who did not come in a crisis situation, there might be nothing apparent to see. Except, of course, that religion which is emphatically not a religion of peace. A great irony in all of this is that some leftist commentators are attempting to blame a man who argued with Syed Farook over whether Islam is a religion of peace! Yes, that's it: If you tell someone that his religion is not peaceful, thereby implying that he should embrace a different religion, you risk angering him so that he will go on building pipe bombs at home and perhaps come back with his wife and a bunch of guns and murder you and co-workers. Clearly the fault lies with the person who says that the religion is not peaceful!
If mainstream conservatives can begin to get the message that
--Islam is an inherently violent religion,
--There is no good way to screen for potential terrorists among potential immigrants, and
--Immigration to Western countries is not an entitlement,
a time may come when they are willing to consider a saner, less mindlessly "compassionate," religiously non-neutral, approach to immigration. And no, in case you are wondering, that is not unconstitutional.
I'm not saying it's very likely, and even if it happened, I'm not saying that it would be adopted by our government. But if we who are considered well to the right cannot even point to events like the San Bernardino shooting to convince those closer to ourselves on the political spectrum, we are indeed in danger of doing nothing but wallowing in bitter impotence. I therefore suggest that, perhaps more tactfully than the title of this post suggests, we explain to our conservative friends and family that it's the ideology, every time.